Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite | Specification | Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra |
|---|---|---|
| 300.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 400.0 GH/s |
| 500 W | Power Consumption | 100 W |
| 1,666,666.7 J/TH | Efficiency | 250.0 J/TH |
| 45 dB | Noise Level | 35 dB |
| 4.0 kg | Weight | 2.5 kg |
| 1,706 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 341 BTU/hr |
| 62/100 | Home Mining Score | 71/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithm | KHeavyHash |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite
Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra
Based on BTC price of $78,139 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra comes out ahead — it takes 6 of 6 (efficiency, hashrate, power consumption, home mining score, noise level, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 100% better efficiency (1,666,667 vs 250 J/TH). Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite and Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra sit on each measurable spec:
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra 133233% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.4 TH/s)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra 80% better power draw (500 vs 100 W)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra 100% better efficiency (1,666,667 vs 250 J/TH)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra 22% better noise (45.0 vs 35.0 dB)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra 38% better weight (4.0 vs 2.5 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 400% more heat output (1,706 vs 341 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra 15% more home mining score (62.0 vs 71.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Hardware cost is only half the story — here is how each miner's upfront price plays out against cumulative profit at a $0.10/kWh rate.
| Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite | Metric | Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra |
|---|---|---|
| $979 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $77 |
| -$1.20 | Daily net profit | -$0.23 |
| -$1,417 | Net after 1 year | -$159 |
| -$1,855 | Net after 2 years | -$242 |
| -$2,293 | Net after 3 years | -$324 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) |
Projections assume continuous operation, a flat $0.10/kWh rate, and no hardware degradation, pool fees, or BTC price change. Real-world ROI varies.
Best For...
Best for Profitability
TieBoth miners produce similar daily profit.
Best for Home Mining
Iceriver KAS KS0 UltraScore: 71/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra250.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra is more profitable at $-0.23/day compared to $-1.20/day for the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite or the Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite at 45 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra: which fits a residential setup better?
The Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra scores 71/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 62/100 for the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite and Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra on J/TH?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite runs at 1,666,666.7 J/TH while the Iceriver KAS KS0 Ultra runs at 250.0 J/TH — a difference of 1,666,416.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficiency (1,666,667 vs 250 J/TH).